 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
Submitter: îàéø áï ùìîä
Location: S. Korea
Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu ha-Tza•diqꞋ:
2003.07.20 1152 –
[Mei•irꞋ Bên-ShᵊlōmꞋōh] Thanks for demonstrating that proof. I made a mistake saying it's impossible to prove the existence of a Creator. In fact, as I read your proof I remembered another proof I heard in university at a guest lecture given by a Baha'i mathematics professor (and I think neo-Platonic philosopher) which is different from your proof but just as convincing…
[Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 07.29 1700 Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim Time] As a rule, I don’t put other URLs in this web site except those I’ve specifically looked at and recommend.
[Mei•irꞋ 07.29 1152 Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim Time] All logical proofs have certain irreducible assumptions which it's important to point out. In your proof (and Dr. Hatcher's which he pointed out in person during the lecture I attended) an important assumption is that reality exists. It may seem silly, but it is indeed an assumption. The reality we see around us really exists, i.e. we're not all just brains in vats hooked up to machines feeding us a virtual simulation ala the Matrix. The whole "cogito ergo sum" thing.
[Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu] I don’t agree that reality is an assumption. Our perception of reality is dependent upon the senses that reach our brain, but the existence of reality, whether "real" or perceived, is fact. Whether we’re each just a brain, or there’s only one brain (first person singular), hooked up to some vast computer on the Creator’s workbench doesn’t alter the fact that reality still exists. Defining reality and perceiving reality are separate problems, but reality is an unavoidable consequence of cognition.
[Mei•irꞋSome belief systems that hold that the reality we see around us has no intrinsic substance or is some kind of grand illusion may not necessarily accept that assumption upon which these proofs of the Creator are based.
[Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu] Cognition implies reality. Whether our perception of reality is a grand illusion or not doesn’t alter the existence of reality and its implications. Belief systems that deny reality are, by definition, irrational. The Creator is logical because his Creation manifests logic. Those who are illogical (irrational) contradict the basic facts of reality. It’s futile to attempt to present a logical argument to those who, by definition, are illogical. So we dismiss the irrational (illogical) from our discussion as ignorant and irrelevant.
[Mei•irꞋThe next point I was going to bring up was that when you mention a "super-intelligent Singularity," super-intelligent does not necessarily equal "perfect." It's not hard to imagine an intelligence much smarter than human beings, even one capable of desigining the physical laws of our world, but does that make it perfect in an absolute sense?
[Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu] Perfection is a separate issue not implied by super-intelligence.
[Mei•irꞋBut then when I reread Hatcher's proof on the web I saw towards the closing that he discusses that question (something he didn't do in person in the lecture) and I'll quote it here and ask for your comment and/or to present your own proof that the Creator you proved to exist in your last response is also Perfect in the absolute sense:
"The relationships of causality and composition, and the logical connections between them, give us the knowledge of
God's existence. This naturally raises the further question ofGod's nature (what isGodlike?). To answer this, we need now to consider the value relation >=, mentioned in chapter 1, and which only holds between (i.e., is meaningful for) entities. To say that the entity A is as valuable as the entity B, A >= B, means that A is either more refined (higher) – or at least no less refined – than B.The fundamental logical connection between causality and value is given by the refinement principle: where A and B are entities,
if A -> B then A >= B. This means that any causal entity must be at least as refined as its effect. Since
Godis the unique universal cause,Godis also the most refined entity in existence.In particular, humans have the positive qualities of consciousness, intelligence, feelings, and will. Moreover, although each human soul has these qualities to a specific, finite, and limited degree, there is no limit to the degree that these qualities can exist generally in human beings. (For example, no matter how intelligent a given human being may be, it is possible for another human to be more intelligent. [What if there is a biological limit to human intelligence based on brain structure? Even if there was, its not hard to imagine a sentient species with a biological brain structure possessing an intelligence limit beyond that of humans, and another species superior to that one, ad infinitum, so the argument still holds since we're considering any phenomenon in all of existence. mbs])
[Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu] That doesn’t hold. I’m reminded of an IBM scientist in the 70s who proved that the speed of computers had reached it’s absolute limit since it operated at the speed of light and that couldn’t be exceeded. The lecturer (and you) fell into that trap.
There could be limits both upon the knowledge to be learned in the physical universe (despite that it’s unimaginably beyond us) as well as biological limits. Since the Creator’s knowledge can be infinite, the constraint that the Creator >= the created doesn’t necessarily place a limitation on the created. However, it’s child’s play to realize that a Creator we’ve already demonstrated is super-intelligent was smart enough to set limits on his creatures to ensure the continuation of this experiment; i.e. to prevent destruction of the universe, altering of the governing laws (create new forces, eliminate gravity), etc.
[Mei•irꞋSince [Ël•oh•imꞋ] is the unique cause of every human being, [Ël•oh•imꞋ] must have these positive qualities (and undoubtedly others) to a degree greater than every limited (finite) degree, thus to an unlimited (infinite) degree. Hence, [Ël•oh•imꞋ] is infinitely conscious, infinitely knowing, infinitely loving, and infinitely willing (all-powerful). In fact, since [Ël•oh•imꞋ] is the only Being whose existence is absolute (i.e., uncaused), [Ël•oh•imꞋ] has these qualities to an absolute degree."
I'd like to see your proof that the Creator is Perfect.
After you establish that, I'll leave the next chapter to you, since then we can begin the discussion of the Yetziah with the knowledge that there is a Creator (and that He is Perfect).
[Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu] (I’ve substituted "Ël•oh•imꞋ" since "God" is the name of an ancient idol of fortune and Tor•âhꞋ prohibits uttering the names of other ël•oh•imꞋ.) Perfection is a definition integral to creation. We can look for paradigms in the virtual world. When a virtual designer defines something about navigating in a virtual world, the designer defines what will work and what won’t work, i.e. perfection relative to that particular issue.
All of our scientific knowledge attests that there are no contradictions nor irrationalities in creation, and creation reflects its Creator. Ergo, there is no contradiction nor irrationality in the Creator. By definition, the Creator, who defined everything (including perfection), is Perfect. Even Einstein recognized that the Creator is not capricious.
Now we can address the question of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ. I’ll lead with two rhetorical questions that present myriads of logical pitfalls:
 |
|
 |